Pop-Up Case: Prisoner Swap

Two American citizens have been unjustly detained abroad, and although one was returned, another remains in Russia. The United States needs to
decide what action to take when an American citizen’s life is swept up in a geopolitical conflict.

Use the following hypothetical case to spark discussion and help students to
think through what they would do if they were decision makers. See the back of the
page for some inspiration for how to structure your conversation.

The Situation:
Paul Whelan, a U.S. citizen, was arrested while traveling in Russia on December
28, 2018, on accusations of spying and received a sixteen-year prison sentence.
His case gained attention when, in February 2022, Brittney Griner, a thirty-one-
year-old American basketball player, was arrested at an airport in Moscow on
drug-related charges and sentenced to nine years in prison.
The arrests of Whelan and Griner were widely viewed in the United States as
unjust. Their detentions unfolded as the United States’ relationship with Russia
became increasingly tense due to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Many experts
have therefore seen the imprisonment of Griner and the continued detainment of
Whelan as a political tactic by Russia’s government, shaped by its deteriorating
relationship with the United States.
A “prisoner exchange” or “swap” is a manoeuvre where opposing countries agree
to release one imprisoned citizen in exchange for another. Many high profile
examples of prisoner swaps have occurred throughout history, especially those
relating to spies. More recently, everyday citizens have been imprisoned abroad,
such as a case of a young American student detained in North Korea on charges
of espionage.
Although swapping prisoners can be an effective tool for liberating Americans
detained abroad, the method also has downsides. The United States must agree to
exchange a foreign national deemed dangerous enough to incarcerate, which
runs the risk that, once released, the individual will perpetrate further crimes
against the United States or other countries. Swaps can also signal that the United
States is willing to bargain with other countries, even when a negotiation could
mean releasing a dangerous individual. Although research is limited, some
evidence suggests [PDF] that swaps or other concessions made in return for
detainees abroad can incentivize governments to arrest Americans to elicit a
reaction from the United States.
In December 2022, the United States successfully negotiated Griner’s release
through a prisoner swap but failed in the same negotiation to liberate Whelan,
leaving him imprisoned in Russia. The United States had initially requested to
swap Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in exchange for both Whelan and Griner.
The exchange of Victor Bout was controversial, as Bout’s illicit arms deals have
led to many deaths in multiple countries and world regions. The United States’
next move could now determine whether or not Whelan is set free.
Additional Resources:
1. How Do Prisoner Swaps Work (The Economist)
2. Here Are Some Prisoner Swaps That Freed Americans (New York Times)
3. How Are Political Prisoner Swaps Negotiated (Big World)
Decision Point:
The president has convened the National Security Council (NSC) to
determine a course of action concerning Whelan's detainment. The
council should consider whether to negotiate for Whelan’s release, what
the optimal offer is—not just for Whelan but for U.S. interests and the
preservation of American lives abroad—and how long to keep an offer on
the table.
Note: Although U.S. policy does not prohibit private parties from paying
ransom to release U.S. citizens held abroad, the United States discourages
doing so and has not offered payment for Whelan. As a general rule, the
United States does not pay for the release of its citizens held abroad out of
concern that it will encourage further unjust detentions.
NSC members should consider the following policy options:
• Offer a new one-to-one prisoner exchange for Whelan. This proposal could
help revitalize momentum for the release of Whelan but could signal U.S.
weakness, given that the United States had initially demanded a more
favorable deal in a two-for-one swap. The United States would also need to
identify another Russian detainee it would be willing to swap who could
potentially harm the United States or other parties once free.
• Expand the deal, offering to release additional Russian prisoners or make
other concessions such as payments or political concessions to expedite the
swap. Offering a more favorable deal to Russia is likelier to liberate Whelan,
who has been languishing in detention for years. However, such actions
could incentivize future wrongful detentions and could reduce U.S.
credibility in the future.
• Hold back on provisional proposals for a prisoner swap. This option would
demonstrate U.S. resolve, likely enhance U.S. credibility, and avoid releasing
another dangerous foreign national imprisoned in the United States. It
would also bolster the impression that the United States will not capitulate to
bullying through wrongful detentions. It would, however, cause more
suffering for Whelan and his family and run the risk of him dying in prison
in Russia.

Like Model Diplomacy?Try a full case at modeldiplomacy.cfr.org.

Gain knowledge, build skills, and broaden perspectives with Model Diplomacy.
Questions? Contact us at modeldiplomacy@cfr.org.
 Pop-Up Case Guidelines
Pop-up cases from Model Diplomacy are short case studies on current events that put students in the shoes of policymakers facing the most pressing
issues in international relations. There are lots of ways to organize a discussion using a pop-up case. It is always helpful to think about your goals for
the discussion and then to consider any time or participation constraints you could have. If you are teaching online and cannot discuss
synchronously, consider a short writing assignment or using an online discussion board (see some excellent tips here and here). If you are teaching
face-to-face or over videoconference and are looking for some inspiration, here are a few ideas:

Gauge Reaction:
If you want to show what students are thinking before diving into the
discussion, here are two easy ways to do it. In one, often called “four
corners,” assign each policy option to a corner of the room, and then
ask students to stand in the corner associated with the policy option
they support. In the other, if you want your students to think along a
spectrum instead (e.g., interventionist-isolationist, unilateral-
multilateral, more urgent–less urgent), put the ends of your spectrum
at either end of your blackboard and have students stand along the
board to indicate where along the spectrum they fall. With both
approaches, everyone will sit down again with a sense of where they
stand regarding the case. Use this knowledge to shape discussion—
eliciting less popular opinions, challenging more popular ones,
encouraging like-minded students to further develop their ideas, or Don Pollard
having students who disagree discuss in small groups.

Think-Pair-Share: Simple Cabinet Simulation:

This exercise is particularly useful for groups where some students are Appoint yourself (or a student) to be president. Ask students to debate
the policy options (or come up with new ones), and try to reach
hesitant. Ask everyone to spend a few minutes quietly gathering their
consensus on a recommendation to the president. The president
thoughts and articulating them in a notebook (“think”), then have
should ask questions and ultimately make a decision and explain their
them turn to the person sitting next to them to compare notes
choice.
(“pair”), and then have students report out to the whole group
(“share”), knowing that everyone will have had time to think through
something to say.
Cabinet Simulation With Assigned
Opinions:
Whiparound: While assigning individual roles for a brief case study is complicated,
you could assign the class opinions. For example, divide your class into
Ask students to briefly share their position one after the other without three groups, and assign each group one of the policy options
responding to each other. Typically, everyone speaks in the order they presented in the case. Let the groups caucus for a few minutes, then
are sitting. This can be a way to see where everyone stands before present their policy options and debate them, leaving the final decision
up to you (or another student) as president.
launching into a discussion. If you expect a topic to be particularly
contentious, you could have students listen to each other and then
reflect in writing.

Like Model Diplomacy?Try a full case at modeldiplomacy.cfr.org.

Gain knowledge, build skills, and broaden perspectives with Model Diplomacy.
Questions? Contact us at modeldiplomacy@cfr.org.